MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986149151

Osallistumattomuus koululiikunnassa - Yläkoululaisten syyt jättää osallistumatta liikuntatunneilla

2025· dissertation· en· W6986149151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Secondary educationPhysical educationData collectionWork (physics)AttendanceStatistical analysisCurriculum
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This master’s thesis examines why students didn’t participate in lower secondary school physical education (PE) classes. The aim was to investigate the occurrence and reasons for non-participation, as well as students' opinions on school PE. The study also aimed to examine differences in non-participation between grade levels and genders. Non-participation refers to situations where a student purposefully does not engage in the teacher’s planned lesson activities. For example, a student may lean against the wall, lie down in the middle of an exercise or a game, leave the PE classroom without permission, or fool around. Non-participation is important research topic, as it occurs quite commonly in PE classes. Participation in PE lessons is important for students to achieve the goals of physical education. The study participants were consisted of 7th to 9th-grade students (n=185) from a lower secondary school in Jyväskylä. The data was collected at the school in January 2025 using a Webropol questionnaire, which was developed based on previous research literature. The data was analysed using frequency distributions, crosstabulations, the chi-square test, and the z-test. According to the results, about half of the students have at least sometimes refused to participate in PE classes. Approximately a quarter of the students refused to participate often. When comparing grade levels, 8th graders participate less than 7th and 9th graders during PE lessons. Girls answered more often than boys that they don’t participate. The most common reasons for non-participation among all respondents were: the lesson is boring, I am not interested in the lesson content, I am tired, I feel unwell or sick, and I just don't feel like it or I am having a bad day. A statistically significant differences between 7th–8th graders and 9th graders were found in four reasons: I cannot exercise with the group I want, the student group is too large, I get frustrated in class, and the lesson has no rules. 7th–8th graders responded that all these reasons affected their decision not to participate more than 9th graders was. A statistically significant difference between girls and boys was found in four reasons: PE class makes me anxious, I am tired, I get frustrated in class, and I just don’t feel like it or I am having a bad day. In all these reasons, girls answered more often than boys that the reason influenced their decision not to participate in physical education class. In addition, the results show that students who do not like PE are more likely to not participate. The findings of this thesis can be used in the planning and implementation of PE. Based on the results, teachers should pay attention to students' group dynamics, interaction, and opportunities for participation. Group bonding activities could help reduce dissatisfaction with group divisions and the non-participation associated with it. Investing in group cohesion and atmosphere could also potentially reduce anxiety related to PE classes. Furthermore, by listening to students' opinions and suggestions, teachers could positively influence students' attitudes and participation in PE.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä)Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207